Author: Stilgherrian

Posted on

Those magick child porn filters…

Bernadette McMenamin, CEO of Child Wise, has entered the debate on Internet filtering waving the “stop child pornography” banner.

It is beyond belief that some representatives of the Australian internet service provider industry are reluctant to install filters that would prevent access to child pornography.

Surely any decent person would do all they can to protect children. However there exists a small but vocal group in Australia which is opposed to the federal Government’s proposal to introduce mandatory ISP filtering to block child pornography and other illegal content.

I must admit, I always start worrying when I see appeals to “decency”, because it usually flags that I’m about to see an appeal to Victorian middle-class “family values” and a distinct lack of logic. Nevertheless I’ve posted a comment thusly, which The Australian may or may not publish:

Bernadette McMenamin is obviously a hard-working and committed woman “fighting the good fight” against child pornography and other abuses of children. Excellent. If only there were more like her.

It’s a shame, however, that in her eagerness she’s fallen for Senator Conroy’s trap.

If his proposal was only about child pornography then it’d be a good thing. Indeed, if such magic devices as “filters that would prevent access to child pornography” existed I’d buy three. I’d also buy a perpetual motion machine and an elixir of youth while I was at it.

The fact that Ms McMenamin is willing to hand the government a comprehensive online censorship mechanism while chasing this chimera of a Magick Filter only shows how naive her understanding of the Internet is, and how her passion has clouded her understanding of the bigger picture.

To which I would now add, the very premise of your essay is faulty. The proposal is not about filtering illegal content. It’s about filtering material which is legal for adults to view but which is “inappropriate” (another Victorian-values word!) for children — and making adults register in some as-yet-to-be-defined process to view what it legal for them to view.

I’m also wondering… What proposal have you actually seen which makes you so confident that you want to support it? Or do you just respond in a knee-jerk reaction when someone does the “Won’t someone think of the children?” fallacious argument trick?

[Update: The Australian has published my comment online, without the last paragraph.]

Posted on

Privacy Manifesto for Web 2.0

As everyone pours their personal lives into Facebook et al, what happens to it? Some companies reckon they own it all. Others reckon they can change the rules at any time, and just tell you afterwards.

Alec Saunders has proposed a Privacy Manifesto for the Web 2.0 Era (and you can follow that link for some discussion of the why):

  1. Every customer has the right to know what private information is being collected. That rules out any secret data collection schemes, as well as monitoring regimes that the customer hasn’t agreed to in advance. It also rules out any advertising scheme that relies on leaving cookies on a customer’s hard disk without the customer’s consent.
  2. Every customer has the right to know the purpose for which the data is being collected, in advance. Corporations must spell out their intent, in advance, and not deviate from that intent. Reasonable limits must be imposed on the collection of personal information that are consistent with the purpose for which it is being collected. Furthermore, the common practice of inserting language into privacy policies stating that the terms may be modified without notice should be banned. If the corporation collecting data wishes to change its policy then it’s incumbent upon the corporation to obtain the consent of customers in advance.
  3. Each customer owns his or her personal information. Corporations may not sell that information to others without the customer’s consent. Customers may ask, at any time, to review the personal information collected; to have the information corrected, if that information is in error; and to have the information removed from the corporation’s database.
  4. Customers have a right to expect that those collecting their personal information will store it securely. Employees and other individuals who have access to that data must treat it with the same level of care as the organization collecting it is expected to.

Hat tip to Peter Black.

Posted on

Send the wife in first, eh Thaksin?

Perhaps my Prediction number 6 for 2008 won’t come true. The wife of former Thai president Thaksin Shinawatra, returned to Bangkok yesterday and was immediately taken to the Supreme Court to face corruption charges. Pojaman Shinawatra, 51, was charged with using her husband’s influence to buy real estate at one-third its value. She was released on bail of 5 million baht ($171,400) and ordered not to leave the country.

Posted on

Hitler not such a monster after all?

What do you think of Daniel Eatock’s “modern” version of Adolf Hitler (pictured)? He actually looks quite striking, does he not? Follow the link and you’ll see a similar treatment of Winston Churchill too.

Whenever we see Hitler on TV, he’s rendered in slow motion and we hear the droning, threatening music. The message is extremely unsubtle: This Man Is A Monster.

I think it’s dangerous to depict Hitler that way.

Yes, of course Hitler was a monster. But if we ever need to deal with another charismatic, psychotic, genocidal maniac there won’t be some invisible orchestra playing the theme from Jaws so we can spot him. We’ll have to figure it out for ourselves.

That’ll be tough. Just as Hitler and his mates used the best media technology and techniques of their age to craft their public image, any new Hitler-esque politician will do the same. Their PR agency will craft an image we can relate to. If they’re a Rising Star of politics, the magazines will commission photo shoots — and it’ll all look something like this photo.

Continue reading “Hitler not such a monster after all?”